MEN WITH DEPENDENTS

Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 150, 26 June 1916, Page 6

MEN WITH DEPENDENTS

Notwithstanding the protests that have been made regarding the inadequate separation allowances paid out to dependents of soldiers in the New Zealand Army, the National Government remains adamant in its refusal ito grant what is even a bare measure of justice. In the debate on the Military Servy Bill its policy was declared by the Hon. Jas. Allen as follows : "As Minister of Defence I have never called upon the married men to enlist under the voluntary principle. They have been, accepted when they have offered, and they offered of .their own free will. All honour to them !" In rendering that honour the nation gives a ready response, but there are few among us who will be prepared to concede that the dependents of these gallant men are being equally honourably treated by our Ministers. With them it has been a case of a "conis^ien^, conscience." While not " encOTraging" these men to enlist they have gladly accepted their services, only rejecting those whose dependents protested that they, were being left inadequately provided for; as the dependents of the remainder made no protest the Government, with an easy-going sense of its responsibilities, presumed that they were left reasonably well off, and with .special generosity granted separation allowances of Is a, day for a wife and £d a day for each child up to' five. If men enlisted under those conditions it was their responsibility, not thp. Government's. This, we maintain, is the reverse of an honourable proceeding, because once the Government accepts the services of men with dependents it is in duty bound to maintain those dependents, and, more than that, to see- that they are not allowed to suffer when the Stat-e can render them aid. This applies equally to single men with dependents as to married"! men, but here again the Government has ignored its responsibility ; the only dependent it permits a single man to have is a. widowed mother, whom it grants-. Is a day. Yet it is notorious that there are many single men, who have more dependents than a good many of their, Benedict comrades, and the Government, in its desire to be fa<v to everybody, appeaJs to all' single men alike to join the colours. In fact, under the Compulsion Bill it places them all in Division I-

As an illustration of what the present Government will do when it is charged with the duty of seeing to the welfa.re of soldiers' dependents, the present position speaks eloquently, and raises anxiety as to the Government's policy for the future. That policy was outlined by the Defence Minister in the same speech as follows:—"Under this Bill, if it becomes law, they (the married men) will still have the opportunity to voluntarily enlist, but they will not be called upon to do so; they will not be encouraged to do .so." He conveys no intimation as to whether increased separation allowances are to be granted in future, which means that the present unjust scale is to continue, and the dependents of men who go to the front out of a spirit of self-sacrifice and duty are to be made to feel the pinch of poverty. It is difficult to believe that a New Zealand National Government could be guilty of such conduct, especially when the Hon. James Allen, as Minister in charge of the War Pensions Amendment Bill, made this pronouncement: "It is our duty to provide for them, and it is our duty to provide for those who are dependent upon them, and not to utilise them or the legislation which so nearly concerns them for mere political purposes." Here, it appears, there are two policies —one fdr the soldier and his dependents while the soldier ,is on service, and another for the soldier and his dependents after he is killed or he returns. The difference is represented in the scale of payment, the' after-service rates being higher than those for during service. What is the explanation of that? Will the Government kindly explain? The people want to know, because soldiers' *'dependents find it costs just, as much ' for them to live in New Zealand whether their breadwinners are at the front or here. Also, does the Government propose to conscript men on the present scale of separation allowances? This is what the country wants to know, and it demands an answer ; it demands that answer now, because with the Compulsion Bill on the Statute Book he who raises such a question in future will only do so at the risk of prosecution. We would remind members jof Parliament of this,' and urge them to force the hands of tile Government immediately on tho question. Otherwise their opportunity will be gone and with the Government they must share, the .resoonsibililix.